Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Application of Waste Tire in Construction: A Road Towards Sustainability and Circular Economy

Altmetrics

Downloads

205

Views

94

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

12 March 2024

Posted:

13 March 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
The global demand for rubber is on a steady rise, which is driven by the increasing production of automobiles and the growing need for industrial, medical, and household products. This surge in demand has led to a significant increase in rubber waste, posing a major global environmental challenge. End-of-life tire (ELT) is a primary source of rubber waste, which possesses significant environmental hazards due to its massive stockpiles. While landfilling is a low-cost and easy-to-implement solution, it is now largely prohibited due to environmental concerns. Recently, ELT rubber waste has garnered considerable attention for its potential applications in civil engineering and construction. These applications not only enhance sustainability but also foster a circular economy between ELT rubber waste and the civil engineering and construction sectors. This review article concentrates on the recent research progress and challenges in the civil engineering applications of ELT rubber waste. It also discusses commercially available recycled rubber-based construction materials, their properties, testing standards, and certification. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first time such a discussion on commercial products has been presented.
Keywords: 
Subject: Chemistry and Materials Science  -   Materials Science and Technology

1. Introduction

Recently, climate change has emerged as the single biggest challenge in the 21st century [1]. Hence, sustainable development, recycling, and circular economy have become popular research topics within the scientific community worldwide [2]. The global demand for vehicles has been increasing at a significant pace as a result of continued growth in population and social economy [3]. This increase in demand creates a growing concern about generating high levels of ELT wastes, as their disposal causes several environmental issues (Figure 1) [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. According to a recent report by the International Market Analysis Research and Consulting (IMARC) Group, the global tire market size was estimated to be approximately 2.3 billion units in 2022 [27]. The same report also forecasted that the market will reach approximately 2.7 billion units by 2028 with a compound annual growth rate of 2.8% between 2023 and 2028 [27]. Amin et al. have recently reported that approximately 1.5 billion ELTs are generated globally each year [25,28]. This number could potentially reach up to 5 billion ELT by 2030 [6]. In the past, ELT wastes were mostly landfilled, stockpiled, and incinerated [24]. According to a recent study, the global management of ELT wastes now includes recycling (3-15%), reuse (5-23%), landfill and stockpile (20-30%), as well as incineration (25-60%) [25,29].
However, landfilling, stockpiling, and incineration of ELT wastes have severe environmental impacts [24,25]. For example, the landfilling of ELT wastes could result in the leaching of toxic substances and heavy metals into the ecosystem contaminating soil, groundwater, and underground water resources [24,26]. It was also reported that landfilled ELT wastes can trap gases and create punching holes in the landfill cover [23]. The stockpiled ELT wastes can store water as they are mostly empty cavities and impermeable. This trapped water can act as a breeding habitat for mosquitoes, bacteria, mold, and rodents becoming a health hazard to the nearby communities [12,23]. Furthermore, stockpiled ELT wastes create significant fire hazards as rubber is highly combustible (petroleum-based compounds). The rubber in ELT wastes can serve as a fuel leading to a prolonged fire event and contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Figure 2) [30,31,32]. Upon burning, ELT wastes have the potential to generate black smoke, soot, and odor, and cause severe air pollution due to the release of toxic gases including dioxin [31,32]. It is also very difficult to extinguish such fire because of the combustion of a large amount of stockpiled ELT, which was shown to last for several weeks to months [23,24,33]. For example, a stockpiled ELT fire in Haggerville (Canada) occurred in 1990. This fire lasted for 17 days and forced the evacuation of 1700 people due to severe air pollution and contamination of nearby water wells [33]. Similarly in 2012, another fire incident in Iowa City (USA) lasted for 18 days and caused severe air pollution [24]. These prolonged fire events resulted from the presence of highly flammable hydrocarbons in ELT wastes and their low thermal conductivity making them difficult to cool down [3,32]. Although the fire can be extinguished from the outside, the tires can still burn from the inside and restart the fire again. In addition, the residues generated from burned ELT have the potential to contaminate the soil and groundwater [30]. A study reported that spraying water on an ELT fire caused an increase in pyrolytic oil generation, resulting in the leaching of contaminants off-site [23].
Incineration of ELT wastes could be the cheapest and easiest disposal approach. However, this approach can also have severe environmental impact [3,6,25]. In particular, incineration of ELT wastes is known to release carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen chloride, butadiene, and other toxic aromatic compounds. It was estimated that the incineration of 1 ton of ELT wastes could release about 450 kg of poisonous gases and 270 kg of soot into the atmosphere [25,34]. Alternately, there are several different ELT wastes recycling processes including (i) pyrolysis, (ii) fuel in cement kilns or energy recovery (tire-derived fuel, TDF), (iii) reclamation, (iv) civil engineering, and (v) granulation (ground tire rubber, GTR). However, some recycling processes have their drawbacks. For example, pyrolysis and TDF are expensive and not economically sustainable because these processes generate carbon black (CB) and contribute to GHG emissions. The CB generated from these processes is more expensive and poor quality compared to virgin CB produced from petroleum [6,9]. In addition, pyrolysis requires large processing plants having high operational costs and limited large-scale industrial applications [26]. In contrast, the use of ELT wastes in construction has become very popular in recent years due to their attractive and promising material properties such as long-term durability/stability, good insulation (acoustic and thermal), low density, low earth pressure, high compressibility, and good drainage capability.
Managing ELT wastes is highly important given the amount and complexity of these materials. It is estimated that a car contains about 6.7% of rubber parts of which 65.5% is associated with the tires [35]. In general, tires are composed of 7 major parts including tread, belts, sidewalls, carcass, inner liner, beads, and beads filler [36]. These parts are made from up to 12 and 20 raw materials designed for passenger cars and trucks, respectively [37]. The typical raw materials used for making those tire parts are listed in Table 1. According to Table 1, it is clear that the main materials to recycle, after their separation, are the rubber in the form of GTR, as well as the reinforcement including metal and textile. To this end, several studies were performed on each type of raw material to find some applications to valorize these residues and a few review articles have been recently published for recycling ELT metals [39,40,41] and textiles [38,42]. However, the main tire raw material is rubber, which represents about half of a tire’s weight. This rubber has been used in the form of GTR either alone or blended with other matrices to produce different compounds and/or products. Some examples are thermoset [43,44] and thermoplastic [45,46] matrices, especially to produce thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) [37,47].
Previously, several review articles were published focusing on the applications of different tire raw materials for their valorization [26,35,46]. This review article focuses on the recent research and development (R&D) progress in civil engineering applications of ELT waste rubber. A discussion on commercially available recycled rubber-based construction materials is also presented. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time that such a discussion of commercial products is presented with different R&D applications including asphalt, concrete, sand, and earth/soil. To limit the scope of this review, the subject of functional upcycling [48], including rubber devulcanization [36,49], is not included.

2. R&D Progress in Civil Engineering Applications

As described above, ELT wastes can be regenerated into different raw materials, which need to be valorized (Table 1). To complete the applications list mentioned earlier, the focus of this section was on the introduction of GTR in construction and civil engineering applications in general. Since a great deal of literature was previously published on each subject, the following discussion focuses on the most recent advances to present the current R&D trends.

2.1. Asphalt

The addition of GTR into asphalt has been done for a very long time. These rubberized asphalts were developed to improve the matrix’s behavior under different conditions. Although a great deal of literature was published on this subject, several recent review articles are available to get a general overview of this subject [50,51]. Different methods (wet, high shear) were studied to introduce the rubber particles in the bituminous matrix to improve the service performances of the final blends. The main parameters were temperature, shear intensity, and time. Besides this, the GTR content (2-50% wt.) and their particle size (0.1 - 10 mm) were also found to be very important in defining the final blend performance. One important property of GTR is swelling, which can occur under different chemical environments. The swelling results in increasing the GTR particle size enabling a better interaction with the matrix under a wide range of conditions (pressure, temperature, etc.). Surface roughness must also be accounted for to get a complete understanding of all the factors involved. This is highly important for mechanical and rheological (workability) properties.
There is also a possibility to treat GTR before mixing to get better interfacial compatibility. This can be done via microwave, plasma, and radiation (UV), as well as chemical modifications (acid, base, solvent, etc.) and grafting (coupling agent). Based on the GTR content, a variety of properties can be improved including ductility, penetration, softening point, toughness, and viscosity. These properties improvements can lead to better performances in terms of bending, creep, elastic recovery, fatigue, rutting, thermal cracking, and high- and low-temperature storage stability. Nevertheless, the type of rubber and its composition will also affect the overall behavior of the blends, especially for low-temperature applications. The properties of the blends can also be improved by adding a third ingredient such as char (plastics) [52], virgin rubber [53], or natural/synthetic/recycled fibers [54]. There is also a possibility to add GTR in asphalt-concrete/cement mixtures. Very recently, Alsheyab and coworkers reported that the addition of GTR in asphalt-concrete mixtures improved the Marshall stability, void mineral aggregate and air voids, water sensitivity, and creep resistance [55]. They conducted a ladder study on GTR content (5-15%) to optimize the performance of asphalt-concrete mixtures. The 10% GTR content in asphalt-concrete mixtures afforded the optimum best performance.

2.2. Concrete

Concrete is a highly-produced material because of its general application in civil engineering. This is why the material is interesting because even at low concentrations, there are several possibilities for any replacement. In the past, different types of waste were investigated, and recycled crumb rubber was one of them [56]. All these materials have been classified as replacements or additives. Due to the wide interest in rubberized concrete, several hundreds of articles (above 1100 based on the Web of Science, September 2023, combining “recycled rubber” with “concrete”) have been published, which can be regrouped into a dozen review articles over the last two years [57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. The main results are reported here.
The addition of rubber particles in concrete formulations is mainly to improve the durability of the matrix as the particles are elastic and can easily be deformed under stress. The particles are not hygroscopic and provide better resistance towards water infiltration as well as carbonation and chloride ions to protect structural elements such as rebars (steel). In all cases, extended life is generated for the structures. In most cases, lower sound/thermal conductivity (better sound/thermal insulation) is observed to satisfy ever-increasing building requirements (energy savings). Better durability was also observed in terms of cyclic/dynamic deformation (fatigue and freeze-thaw), but mitigated results have been reported for both increased and decreased drying shrinkage, which might be a function of the particle size distribution. Although workability (viscosity) and most mechanical properties decrease with increasing GTR content, the impact strength usually increases as the elastic rubber particles can deform and absorb the energy before failure. Finally, GTR has a lower density than the neat matrix leading to weight saving as the content increases. The optimum rubber content is usually around 5-15% wt., but a wide range of particle sizes (0.1-20 mm) have been investigated depending on the property to optimize. Once again, the properties of rubberized concrete can be improved by performing a surface treatment (chemical and thermal) on the rubber particles before mixing [65,66]. Another possibility is the addition of a third ingredient (also of recycled origin) such as a thermoplastic [67,68] and fibers [3,28].

2.3. Sand

Rubberized sand has been investigated for several years [69,70,71]. In the early studies, the effect of the GTR content (5-50%) on the mechanical properties (shear, triaxial, etc.) of different types of sand and their particle size distribution was investigated. Based on the results obtained, several models were proposed for design calculations in terms of geotechnical applications. Depending on the conditions, the addition of GTR (size and shape) mainly changes the internal friction (angle) between the particles and the shear strength under both static and dynamic (damping) conditions. It also modifies the ductility, drainage properties, and compressibility of the blends. The optimum performance was achieved with approximately 10% GTR content.

2.4. Earth/Soil

To stabilize the soil for different geotechnical applications, GTR has been added as a low-cost solution to modify properties such as compression, creep, shear, permeability, and drainage (hydraulic properties) [72,73,74]. Soil properties improvements can be obtained by careful control of the GTR particle size, geometry, and composition. While low GTR content (20%) is used for consolidation, high GTR content (30%) is used for insulation. Since the GTR density is low compared to soil, their mixing provides a low-weight solution to produce backfilling.
Nevertheless, several other recycling approaches have been targeted to use GTR in specific applications. Some examples are railway systems [71,75,76] and geopolymers [77,78]. In all cases, the main objective of producing rubberized composites is to reduce the costs (economics) while reusing waste (environment) for high-volume applications. Furthermore, GTR induces elasticity/toughness in the materials, especially under cyclic deformation. Finally, improved durability and stability (weathering) are observed after optimization of the processing conditions and the composite formulation (concentration of each ingredient). As for any materials, care must be taken while recycling ELT wastes and the residual products. Besides moving away from downcycling and “greenwashing”, several factors must be accounted for when working with recycled materials such as GTR for construction applications. The main factors for a complete analysis and development of value-added products for upcycling are economics, environment, health, performance, and social [79]. This is the only way to achieve complete sustainability and develop commercial applications of interest as described next.

3. Commercial Products for Construction Applications

Recently, recycled ELT products have become very popular with builders and designers across all facets of new construction projects. This is because of their excellent durability, impact absorption, safety and comfort, easy installation, low maintenance requirements, and long-term cost-effectiveness. Typical examples include jogging paths, playgrounds, tennis courts, etc. (Figure 3). Other products related to the maintenance and operation of infrastructure, such as traffic-related products, highway crash barriers, etc., were also developed. A Transparency Market Research recent report suggests that the global market for recycled ELT products, including construction and other areas of application, was valued at $5.3 billion in 2021. The report also indicated that this global market is expected to grow to $7.04 billion by 2031 [80].

3.1. Interior and Exterior Construction Products

Table 2 lists commercially available interior and exterior construction products and their application. The recycled ELT-based interior construction products include floorings, mats, and underlayments. The floorings and mats are used in residential and commercial buildings, sports and fitness centers, and animal farmhouses. The flooring products could be in the form of either rolls or interlocking tiles. Different types of mats are being produced for a wide range of applications, including animal stalls, fitness and sports, anti-fatigue, anti-vibration, etc. These mats are produced by mixing GTR with binders and pigments [81]. Typical GTR size ranges from 0.5 to 3.5 mm. These rubber particles are produced by tire shredding and multi-stage granulating processes followed by separating metals and fibers. Different types of binders are used, but the most important ones are polyurethane, latex, and epoxy binders. However, polyurethane and epoxy binders generate more durable products than latex binders, especially for running tracks [82]. The mats are finally manufactured by hot press molding (compression) and cut into different sizes and shapes based on their application. Different types/geometries are possible including rolls and tiles (flat sheets).
Rubber rolls are produced by skiving (peeling) a hot press molded rubber cylinder on a computer-controlled and precise cutting system. They are believed to be the least expensive flooring products. These rolls are designed for residential, light commercial, and heavy commercial floors, and come in different thicknesses between 6 mm to 10 mm. While 6 mm rubber rolls are designed for residential floors, 8 mm, and 10 mm rubber rolls are designed for light and heavy commercial floors, respectively. These rubber rolls can be 4 feet wide and 25-50 feet long with a wide variety of colors to satisfy the customer’s taste [83]. On the other hand, rubber mats are thicker than rubber rolls. The thickness of rubber mats varies from 9.6 mm to 19 mm depending on their application, and their typical size is 4 ft x 6 ft. For example, the thickness of multi-purpose rubber mats can be up to 12.7 mm, and their application includes gymnasiums, fitness centers, sports arenas, and complexes, as well as garage and shop floors. Although the thickness of animal stall mats is generally 19 mm, thicker mats are also available with thickness up to 25.4 mm. Besides this, some companies offer interlocking stall mats, which are also cost-effective and offer easy installation. The stall mats are very durable, and are designed to withstand the abuse, harsh weather conditions, and roughness of farm life. Some companies also offer anti-fatigue mats for workstations and kitchen areas, which have beveled edges to minimize trip hazards. They offer several attractive features such as easy cleaning, maintenance-free, seamless floor surfaces, mold and mildew resistance, shock and sound absorption, and excellent traction. Also, the stall mats can alleviate joint stress for animals. They can be installed virtually over any surface such as sand, soil, wood, concrete, or asphalt. Besides interior applications, some products are also designed for exterior floor applications. The rubber flooring products also come in tiles, which can be either interlocking or block. The tiles are also manufactured for residential, light commercial, and heavy commercial floors including both interior and exterior applications. The thickness of the tiles varies from 6 to 38.1 mm depending on the floor type and application. The typical thickness of the tiles for residential interior floors is 6 mm. On the other hand, the thicknesses of the tiles for light commercial and heavy commercial floors are 8 mm and 10 mm, respectively. For special applications, such as gym floors and ballistic facilities, the thicknesses of the tiles are 25.4 mm and 38.1 mm, respectively. Typical examples are presented in Figure 4.
The thickness of the tiles for exterior applications including walkways, kids' areas, and patios is 19 mm. All these rubber products are made from 100% recycled rubber, and their compositions consist of up to 92% GTR as the main ingredient. Similar to rubber rolls and mats, the tiles are also very durable, non-slip, and easy to maintain. They also offer excellent features including chemical resistance, low odor, noise reduction, impact absorption, and high traction. The properties and performances of rubber rolls, mats, and tiles are determined following certain test standards, which depend on the product type and application (Table 3). These products have very low volatile organic compounds (VOC) and some are Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified. Another flooring product is underlayment, which is designed to act as a noise barrier reducing sound transmission from room to room and floor to floor in buildings. The composition of underlayment consists of up to 86% GTR as the main ingredient. The applications include commercial, multi-family, education, and healthcare facilities. It can be used with laminate, hardwood, engineered wood, and ceramic tiles. The underlayment comes in rolls that can be 4 feet wide and 25-50 feet long with a wide variety of color options. The thickness of the underlayment varies from 2 mm to 12 mm depending on its applications. It is tested for various properties and performances following relevant test standards as listed in Table 3.
Several GTR-based construction products were designed for exterior applications (Table 2). These include rooftop walkway tiles, playground tiles, deck and landscape tiles, rubber paving, mulch, miscellaneous traffic products, and noise barrier property fence walls. The rooftop walkway tiles are designed for industrial or commercial building roofs to minimize slip and/or fall hazards for the workplace crews. They offer (i) exceptional traction even under wet conditions, (ii) UV resistance for long-term durability, and (iii) easy installation. They come in two different tile types, which include standing seam rooftop walkway tiles and flat rooftop walkway tiles, and some brands are LEED-certified. These tiles are made from 100% recycled rubber and are compatible with any modern roof type such as membrane, metal profile, and standing seam roofs. The dimension of these tiles is 24” wide x 23” long x 2” high. At the bottom, these tiles have 0.25” round standoffs to fully drain water following the roof grade. This prevents any potential for water intrusion into the building, and becoming a breeding ground for mosquitoes.
The playground tiles, which are made from 100% recycled rubber, offer optimum fall safety for kids in the playground and play areas. They are slip-resistant, and porous to allow quick drainage for dry play surfaces. These tiles are fall-height certified and meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements. The properties and/or performance tests and related standards are listed in Table 4. The size of the tiles is 24” x 24”, and their thickness ranges from 38 mm to 121 mm. The fall height rating is dependent on the tile thickness. For example, the fall height ratings for 38 mm and 57 mm playground tiles are 4 ft and 6 ft, respectively. On the other hand, thicker tiles (121 mm) offer a fall height rating of 10 ft when installed with polyfoam. They are available in black and other pigment colors to meet the end user's taste. They are also available in the interlocking pin system. Besides playground tiles, there are other installation accessories including polyfoam, interlock tubes, ramps, and wedges to improve the fall rating and accessibility. Another exterior construction product is deck and landscape tiles, which are also made from 100% recycled rubber. Similar to playground tiles, the deck and landscape tiles are also slip-resistant, porous supporting quick drainage, and fall-resistant. They also offer high traction even under wet conditions, and long-term durability. The size and thickness of these tiles vary depending on their types (interlocking vs. block) and application. Similar to other products, they are also tested for different properties and performances to meet any applicable requirements (Table 4).
The rubber pavings are flexible and porous, made from 100% recycled rubber. They provide a sustainable and environmentally benign alternative solution to concrete pavements. The larger GTR particles allow faster water drainage and quick drying. They typically come in block form, and their thickness varies from 38 mm to 51 mm. Similar to other exterior products, they offer high slip resistance, spike resistance, long-term durability, and low maintenance requirements. Some companies also manufacture crumb rubber additives for asphalt application. These additives help improve asphalt crack and skid resistance, flexibility, and durability of roads as described above.
The rubber mulch is made from 100% recycled rubber and is an eco-friendly alternative to traditional wood mulch. There are two different types of rubber mulch such as nugget mulch and chip mulch. During the manufacturing process, metals are carefully separated from the rubber mulch by using powerful magnets in combination with sensitive metal detectors. The rubber mulch does not splinter due to its softness compared to wood mulch. It is durable, compression-resistant, and can last up to 10 times longer than wood mulch. It has the potential to prevent wind and water erosion, as well as bug and rodent infestation. The rubber mulch comes in a variety of colors, which are resistant to fading against sunlight maintaining the original color and beauty of the landscaped areas for a long time. It offers fall height ratings up to 16 ft and meets ADA accessibility requirements. The miscellaneous traffic products include car parking curbs, speed bumps, shopping cart corral bumps, threshold ramps, pipe and hose ramps, rubber turf infill, delineator bases, sign bases, portable bollard bases, spill containment berms, and engineered trench guards. Another interesting and recent application of ELT wastes is the manufacturing of noise barrier property fence walls. These rubber fence walls not only provide privacy but also significantly reduce noise improving the quality of living of the building occupants. Currently, a few companies around the world are producing such fence walls to reduce the transmission of highway noise into buildings. These rubber fence walls are produced in panel forms, which are made from 100% recycled rubber, and reinforced with a rigid backbone for stability and good mechanical strength. While the panel length can be up to 16 ft, the thickness can vary from 81 mm to 203 mm. Some companies also manufacture rubber-concrete hybrid noise barrier walls. Besides the sound transmission test, the rubber walls are tested for various properties and/or performances as listed in Table 5.

3.2. Earth Homes

Recently, Earthship buildings have appeared as an alternative construction practice in many countries around the world [84,85,86,87]. Such construction practices are intended to promote locally available recycled, natural, and renewable materials. The sustainability in Earthship buildings is implemented by (i) using the solar system for internal heating and/or cooling, (ii) collecting rainwater as a potable water supply, and (iii) potentially recycling the used water for gardening to produce food [84]. The Earthship buildings are constructed by using recycled aluminum cans, glass bottles, and ELT wastes (Figure 5). The walls of these buildings are constructed with earth-filled ELT wastes, which act as the main load-bearing structure and naturally help regulate indoor temperature [85].

4. Conclusions

Based on the information provided in this review, it is clear that ELT wastes are a major environmental issue. This is especially the case as the number of cars and trucks on the roads is still increasing. All these changes will generate a higher number of ELT wastes in the future, but the problem must be addressed now. However, recycling ELT wastes is a complex problem because the tires are highly engineered parts made from different raw materials (metals, fibers, and rubbers). This is especially the case for the rubbers, which are filled with different additives and made from different origins. There is also substantial variation in the tire composition depending on the manufacturers, types (passenger cars vs. trucks), and seasonal applications (winter, all seasons, off-the-road, etc.). The same problems occur for the metal and fiber wastes, which can be of different compositions depending on the tires. A variety of recycled ELT construction products are currently available on the market, which are becoming very popular with builders and designers across all facets of new construction projects. These products offer superior durability and performance making them excellent choices for construction applications. Besides this, Earthship buildings are also becoming popular, which use recycled ELT wastes. The recycling of ELT wastes in construction will not only help conserve the environment but also support sustainable management of resources. In addition, it will create a circular economy between ELT wastes and construction.

5. Future Opportunities

To further improve our understanding of recycling ELT wastes, developing new processes, and finding new applications, more investigations are needed from different points of interest. This will help increase the scope to further implement sustainability in construction and circularity. Here are some key issues that still need further improvement.
Previously, there were several processes developed for reclaiming, and/or regenerating, and/or devulcanizing ELT rubber parts. Nevertheless, the interactions between the processing conditions (time, temperature, pressure, velocity, etc.) and the properties of the final ELT rubber raw materials (particle size, geometry, surface state, devulcanization/regeneration level, number of fillers remaining, etc.) are still not well controlled. This needs more in-depth scientific investigation to further optimize the processing (lower equipment and processing/energy costs), and reduce the number of residues (gases, wastewater, solvents, etc.). More work should be done on the interactions between GTR and different matrices to improve the overall performance. Information on asphalt, concrete, sand, and earth/soil has been presented, but other materials might be of interest including ceramics, metal, plastics, and wood. There are good opportunities for using GTR not only as fillers but also as functional materials including impact modifiers (mechanical properties), and durability-improving agents (long-term stability).
On the other hand, much less work has been done on recycling ELT waste fibers. Although a large volume of fibers was generated, the complex composition of these fibers (different polymers such as polyesters, polyamides, poly, cellulose, etc.) made their separation and recycling very difficult. Furthermore, the fibers still contained residual rubber particles creating difficulty to work with. Also, the fluffy nature of these fibers makes their handling difficult. Hence, there is a need to develop an efficient process to clean and separate the waste fibers before their introduction into a matrix. In addition, the processes must also be optimized to control the fiber's sizes and surface properties. This will improve their dispersion and adhesion within a variety of matrices. By solving these issues, it will be possible to fully recycle ELT waste fibers and develop new technologies at low cost. Further investigations are required to find new applications in civil engineering (asphalt, concrete, soil, etc.), and construction. Several factors are impacting the development of Earthship buildings, which include a formal planning process, a lack of vision, and the idea of focusing on the present at the expense of the future. Hence, further studies and cooperation of different stakeholders are required to address those challenges supporting the development of Earthship buildings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.R.H.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R.H., and D.R.; writing—review and editing, M.R.H., and D.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

None.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wang, T.; Xiao, F.; Zhu, X.; Huang, B.; Wang, J.; Amirkhanian, S. Energy consumption and environmental impact of rubberized asphalt pavement. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Barišić, I.; Zvonarić, M.; Grubeša, I.N.; Šurdonja, S. Recycling waste rubber tyres in road construction. Pol. Acad. Sci. 2021, 67, 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Islam, M.M.U.; Li, J.; Roychand, R.; Saberian, M.; Chen, F. A comprehensive review on the application of renewable waste tire rubbers and fibers in sustainable concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 374, 133998, and references therein. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. André, F.R.; Aboelkheir, M.G. Sustainable approach of applying previous treatment of tire wastes as raw material in cement composites: Review. Mater. Today: Proc. 2022, 58, 1557–1565, and references therein. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Torgal, F.P.; Ding, Y. 13 - Concrete with polymeric wastes. In Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering, Eco-Efficient Concrete, Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Jalali, S., Labrincha, J., John, V.M., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: UK, 2013; pp. 311–339. [Google Scholar]
  6. Thomas, B.S.; Gupta, R.C. A comprehensive review on the applications of waste tire rubber in cement concrete. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2016, 54, 1323–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Onuaguluchi, O.; Banthia, N. Value-added reuse of scrap tire polymeric fibers in cement-based structural applications. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 543–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, M.; Feng, J.; Cao, Y.; Zhang, T. Synergetic effects of hybrid steel and recycled tyre polymer fibres on workability, mechanical strengths and toughness of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 368, 130421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Siddique, R.; Naik, T.R. Properties of concrete containing scrap-tire rubber – an overview. Waste Manage. 2004, 24, 563–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Gorde, P.J.; Naktode, P.L. Chemically treated tyre rubber concrete review. Mater. Today: Proc. 2022, 60, 508–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zia, A.; Pu, Z.; Holly, I.; Umar, T.; Tariq, M.A.U.R.; Sufian, M. A comprehensive review of incorporating steel fibers of waste tires in cement composites and its applications. Mater. 2022, 15, 7420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Assaggaf, R.A.; Ali, M.R.; Al-Dulaijan, S.U.; Maslehuddin, M. Properties of concrete with untreated and treated crumb rubber – A review. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2021, 11, 1753–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Valente, M.; Sibai, A. Rubber/crete: Mechanical properties of scrap to reuse tire-derived rubber in concrete; A review. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 2019, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Qin, X.; Kaewunruen, S. Environment-friendly recycled steel fibre reinforced concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 327, 126967. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kundan, P.; Sharma, S. Rubberized cemented concrete composites: A review. Mater. Today: Proc. 2021, 44, 4838–4842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ali, A.S.; Hasan, T.M. Properties of different types of concrete containing waste tires rubber- a review. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 584, 012051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rodríguez R., S. L.; Hernández H., L.S.; Pérez-Gutiérrez, F.G.; Díaz A., J.H. Mechanical behavior of reinforced concrete with waste-tire particles under an indirect tensile test. MRS Adv. 2019, 4, 2931–2937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Barbuta, M.; Diaconu, D.; Serbanoiu, A.A.; Burlacu, A.; Timu, A.; Gradinaru, C.M. Effects of tire wastes on the mechanical properties of concrete. Procedia Eng. 2017, 181, 346–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Senin, M.S.; Shahidan, S.; Abdullah, S.R.; Guntor, N.A.; Leman, A.S. A review on the suitability of rubberized concrete for concrete bridge decks. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 271, 012074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fazli, A.; Rodrigue, D. Sustainable reuse of waste tire textile fibers (wttf) as reinforcements. Polymers 2022, 14, 3933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Singh, J.; Singh, J. Application of waste tyre rubber in construction industry. Int. J. Civ. Struct. Environ. Infrastruct. Eng. Res. Dev. 2015, 5, 57–64. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mohajerani, A.; Burnett, L.; Smith, J.V.; Markovski, S.; Rodwell, G.; Rahman, M.T.; Kurmus, H.; Mirzababaei, M.; Arulrajah, A.; Horpibulsuk, S. Recycling waste rubber tyres in construction materials and associated environmental considerations: a review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zornberg, J.G.; Christopher, B.R.; LaRocque, C.J. Applications of tire bales in transportation projects. In Recycled Materials in Geotechnics, Aydilek, A.H. Wartman, J., Eds.; American Society of Civil Engineers: USA, 2004; pp. 42–60. [Google Scholar]
  24. Leong, S.Y.; Lee, S.Y.; Koh, T.Y.; Ang, D.T.C. 4R of rubber waste management: current and outlook. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2023, 25, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Abbas-Abadi, M.S.; Kusenberg, M.; Shirazi, H.M.; Goshayeshi, B.; Geem, K.M.V. Towards full recyclability of end-of-life tires: challenges and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 374, 134036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fazli, A.; Rodrigue, D. Recycling waste tires into ground tire rubber (gtr)/rubber compounds: a review. J. Compos. Sci. 2020, 4, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tire market: global industry trends, share, size, growth, opportunity and forecast 2023-2028, IMARC Group, 2023. Report ID: SR112023A575.
  28. Moasas, A.M.; Amin, M.N.; Khan, K.; Ahmad, W.; Al-Hashem, M.N.A.; Deifalla, A.F.; Ahmad, A. A worldwide development in the accumulation of waste tires and its utilization in concrete as a sustainable construction material: a review. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Forrest, M.J. 3. Overview of the world rubber recycling market. In Recycling and Re-use of Waste Rubber, 2nd ed.; Boston: De Gruyter, Germany, 2019; pp. 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Talbott, A.F. Tire fence, US7387295B2, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bekhiti, M.; Trouzine, H.; Asroun, A. Properties of waste tire rubber powder. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2014, 4, 669–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tire pile fires: prevention, response, remediation. Integrated Waste Management Board, Environmental Engineering and Contracting Inc.; 2002.
  33. Pierre, D.K.S. Canadian waste tire practices and their potential in sustainable construction. Dalhousie J. Interdiscip. Manag. 2013, 9. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rumyantseva, A.; Rumyantseva, E.; Berezyuk, M.; Plastinina, J. Waste recycling as an aspect of the transition to a circular economy. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 534, 012002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Czarna-Juszkiewicz, D.; Kunecki, P.; Cader, J.; Wdowin, M. Review in waste tire management-potential applications in mitigating environmental pollution. Materials 2023, 16, 5771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bockstal, L.; Berchem, T.; Schmetz, Q.; Richel, A. Devulcanisation and reclaiming of tires and rubber by physical and chemical processes: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ramarad, S.; Khalid, M.; Ratnam, C.T.; Chuah, A.L.; Rashmi, W. Waste tire rubber in polymer blends: a review on the evolution, properties and future. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2015, 72, 100–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fazli, A.; Rodrigue, D. Sustainable reuse of waste tire textile fibres (WTTF) as reinforcements. Polymers 2022, 14, 393314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Zhang, P.; Wang, C.; Wu, C.; Guo, Y.; Li, Y.; Guo, J. A review on the properties of concrete reinforced with recycled steel fiber from waste tires. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 2022, 61, 276–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Amin, M.N.; Khan, K.; Nazar, S.; Deifalla, A.F. Application of waste recycle tire steel fibers as a construction material in concrete. Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 2023, 62, 20220319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Modarres, Y.; Ghalehnovi, M. The effect of recycled steel fibers from waste tires on concrete properties. Civ. Eng. Infrastruct. J. 2023, 56, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  42. Figueiredoa, F.P.; Shaha, A.H.; Huanga, S.-S.; Angelakopoulosb, H.; Pilakoutasa, K.; Burgessa, I. Fire protection of concrete tunnel linings with waste tyre fibres. Proc. Eng. 2017, 210, 472–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Buss, A.H.; Kovaleski, J.L.; Pagani, R.N.; Silva, V.L.D.; Silva, J.D.M. Proposal to reuse rubber waste from end-of-life tires using thermosetting resin. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hejna, A.; Korol, J.; Romatowska, M.P.-. .; Zedler, Ł.; Chmielnicki, B.; Formela, K. Waste tire rubber as low-cost and environmentally-friendly modifier in thermoset polymers – a review. Waste Manag. 2020, 108, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sienkiewicz, M.; Janik, H.; Labuda, K.B.-. .; Lipka, J.K.-. Environmentally friendly polymer-rubber composites obtained from waste tyres: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 560–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Taurino, R.; Bondioli, F.; Messori, M. Use of different kinds of waste in the construction of new polymer composites: review. Mater. Today Sust. 2023, 21, 100298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fazli, A.; Rodrigue, D. Waste rubber recycling: A review on the evolution and properties of thermoplastic elastomers. Materials 2020, 13, 782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Guselnikova, O.; Semyonov, O.; Sviridova, E.; Gulyaev, R.; Gorbunova, A.; Kogolev, D.; Trelin, A.; Yamauchi, Y.; Boukherroubf, R.; Postnikov, P. Functional upcycling of polymer waste towards the design of new materials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2023, 52, 4755–4832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Markl, E.; Lackner, M. Devulcanization technologies for recycling of tire-derived rubber: a review. Materials 2020, 13, 1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, F.; Zhang, X.; Wang, L.; Zhai, R. The preparation process, service performances and interaction mechanisms of crumb rubber modified asphalt (CRMA) by wet process: a comprehensive review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 354, 129168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Duan, K.; Wang, C.; Liu, J.; Song, L.; Chen, Q.; Chen, Y. Research progress and performance evaluation of crumb-rubber-modified asphalts and their mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 361, 129687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lee, S.; Park, Y.-K.; Lee, J. Upcycling of plastic and tire waste toward use as modifier for asphalt binder. Ener. Env. 2024, 35, 510–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Li, H.; Cui, C.; Temitope, A.A.; Feng, Z.; Zhao, G.; Guo, P. Effect of SBS and crumb rubber on asphalt modification: a review of the properties and practical application. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2022, 9, 836–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Guo, Y.; Tataranni, P.; Sangiorgi, C. The use of fibres in asphalt mixtures: a state of the art review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 390, 131754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Alsheyab, M.A.T.; Khedaywi, T.; Ogiliat, O. Effect of waste tire rubber on properties of asphalt cement and asphalt concrete mixtures: state of the art. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jahami, A.; Issa, C.A. Exploring the use of mixed waste materials (MWM) in concrete for sustainable Construction: a review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 398, 132476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bu, C.; Zhu, D.; Lu, X.; Liu, L.; Sun, Y.; Yu, L.; Xiao, T.; Zhang, W. Modification of rubberized concrete: a review. Buildings 2022, 12, 999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, Y.; Chai, J.; Wang, R.; Zhou, Y.; Tong, X. A review of the durability-related features of waste tyre rubber as a partial substitute for natural aggregate in concrete. Buildings 2022, 12, 1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Surehali, S.; Singh, A.; Biligiri, K.P. A state-of-the-art review on recycling rubber in concrete: Sustainability aspects, specialty mixtures, and treatment methods. Dev. Built Env. 2023, 14, 100171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mei, J.; Xu, G.; Ahmad, W.; Khan, K.; Amin, M.N.; Aslam, F.; Alaskar, A. Promoting sustainable materials using recycled rubber in concrete: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 373, 133927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Muhammad, S.; Yuan, Q.; Alam, M.; Javed, M.F.; Rehman, M.F.; Mohamed, A. Fresh and hardened properties of waste rubber tires based concrete: a state art of review. SN Appl. Sci. 2023, 5, 119. [Google Scholar]
  62. Zrar, Y.J.; Younis, K.H. Mechanical and durability properties of self-compacted concrete incorporating waste crumb rubber as sand replacement: a review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. He, S.; Jiang, Z.; Chen, H.; Chen, Z.; Ding, J.; Deng, H.; Mosallam, A.S. Mechanical properties, durability, and structural applications of rubber concrete: a state-of-the-art-review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhang, P.; Wang, X.; Wang, J.; Zhang, T. Workability and durability of concrete incorporating waste tire rubber: a review. J. Renew. Mater. 2023, 11, 745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tran, T.Q.; Thomas, B.S.; Zhang, W.; Ji, B.; Li, S.; Brand, A.S. A comprehensive review on treatment methods for end-of-life tire rubber used for rubberized cementitious materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 359, 129365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liu, L.; Wang, C.; Liang, Q.; Chen, F.; Zhou, X. A state-of-the-art review of rubber modified cement-based materials: cement stabilized base. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 392, 136270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Singh, P.; Singh, D.N.; Debbarma, S. Macro- and micro-mechanisms associated with valorization of waste rubber in cement-based concrete and thermoplastic polymer composites: a critical review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 371, 130807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Marinelli, S.; Marinello, S.; Lolli, F.; Gamberini, R.; Coruzzolo, A.M. Waste plastic and rubber in concrete and cement mortar: a tertiary literature review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cabalar, A.F. Direct shear tests on waste tires–sand mixtures. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2011, 29, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Anvari, S.M.; Shooshpasha, I.; Kutanaei, S.S. Effect of granulated rubber on shear strength of fine-grained sand. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2017, 9, 936–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ding, Y.; Zhang, J.; Chen, X.; Wang, X.; Jia, Y. Experimental investigation on static and dynamic characteristics of granulated rubber-sand mixtures as a new railway subgrade filler. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 273, 121955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yang, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Shi, W.; Lv, J.; Lu, Z.; Ling, X. Advances in properties of rubber reinforced soil. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Liu, L.; Cai, G.; Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Liu, K. Evaluation of engineering properties and environmental effect of recycled waste tire-sand/soil in geotechnical engineering: a compressive review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2020, 126, 109831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tasalloti, A.; Chiaro, G.; Murali, A.; Banasiak, L. Physical and mechanical properties of granulated rubber mixed with granular soils—a literature review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Farooq, M.A.; Nimbalkar, S.; Fatahi, B. Sustainable applications of tyre-derived aggregates for railway transportation infrastructure. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Qiang, W.; Jing, G.; Connolly, D.P.; Aela, P. The use of recycled rubber in ballasted railway tracks: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 420, 138339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Luhar, I.; Luhar, S. Rubberized geopolymer composites: value-added applications. J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Qaidi, S.M.A.; Mohammed, A.S.; Ahmed, H.U.; Faraj, R.H.; Emad, W.; Tayeh, B.A.; Althoey, F.; Zaid, O.; Sor, N.H. Rubberized geopolymer composites: a comprehensive review. Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 24234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Cirino, E.; Curtis, S.; Wallis, J.; Thys, T.; Brown, J.; Rolsky, C.; Erdle, L.M. Assessing benefits and risks of incorporating plastic waste in construction materials. Front. Built Env. 2023, 9, 1206474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Global tire recycling downstream products market. Transparency Market Research, 2023.
  81. Benjak, P.; Radetić, L.; Tomaš, M.; Brnardić, I.; Radetić, B.; Špada, V.; Grčić, I. Rubber tiles made from secondary raw materials with immobilized titanium dioxide as passive air protection. Processes 2023, 11, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hammer, C.; Gray, T.A. Designing building products made with recycled tires. California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2004.
  83. Hart, B. Comparing rubber gym flooring - rolls, mats, tiles. Greatmats, 2017.
  84. Booth, C.A.; Rasheed, S.; Mahamadu, A.-M.; Horry, R.; Manu, P.; Awuah, K.G.B.; Aboagye-Nimo, E.; Georgakis, P. Insights into public perceptions of Earthship buildings as alternative homes. Buildings 2021, 11, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Datla, A.; Pujitha, V.S.; Mahapatra, G.D. Earthship: the reuse of waste materials in construction. JETIR 2019, 6. [Google Scholar]
  86. Santic, T.S.; Stanojlovic, D. Earthship – a new habitat on Earth for quality life. 1st International Conference on Quality of Life, 2016, 123.
  87. Kruis, N.J.; Heun, M.K. Analysis of the performance of Earthship housing in various global climates, Proceedings of Energy Sustainability, California, 2007.
Preprints 101206 g001
Figure 1. Stockpiled ELT wastes in a dumpsite.
Figure 1. Stockpiled ELT wastes in a dumpsite.
Preprints 101206 g001
Preprints 101206 g002
Figure 2. A fire incident in an ELT stockpile site generates black smoke and other pollutants.
Figure 2. A fire incident in an ELT stockpile site generates black smoke and other pollutants.
Preprints 101206 g002
Preprints 101206 g003
Figure 3. Examples of ELT rubber in construction applications: (a) playground, (b) colored mat, (c) tennis court, and (d) jogging path.
Figure 3. Examples of ELT rubber in construction applications: (a) playground, (b) colored mat, (c) tennis court, and (d) jogging path.
Preprints 101206 g003
Preprints 101206 g004
Figure 4. Examples of ELT rubber (a) mats and (b) tiles.
Figure 4. Examples of ELT rubber (a) mats and (b) tiles.
Preprints 101206 g004
Preprints 101206 g005
Figure 5. Examples of Earthship buildings: (a) under construction and (b) completed.
Figure 5. Examples of Earthship buildings: (a) under construction and (b) completed.
Preprints 101206 g005
Table 1. A list of main tire raw materials and their weight fraction (%). They were adapted from references [36,37,38].
Table 1. A list of main tire raw materials and their weight fraction (%). They were adapted from references [36,37,38].
No. Raw materials Weight fraction (%)
Passenger car Truck
1. Rubber 41-48 41-45
2. Carbon black 21-28 20-28
3. Metal 13-16 20-27
4. Textile 4-6 0-10
5. Additives 10-12 7-10
Table 2. List of commercially available construction products and their application.
Table 2. List of commercially available construction products and their application.
No. Product Categories Product Sub-categories Application
Interior construction products
1. Floorings and mats Rubber rolls Residential and commercial buildings, sports, fitness, daycare, agriculture, ice arenas, garages, etc.
Rubber tiles
Garage and warehouse tiles
Agricultural stall mats
Fitness and sports mats
Anti-fatigue mats
Anti-vibration mats
Arena cover
2. Flooring underlayments Acoustic underlayments Residential and commercial buildings
Exterior construction products
3. Rooftop walkway tiles - Industrial or commercial buildings
4. Deck and landscape tiles Interlocking tiles and blocks Residential and commercial outdoors
5. Asphalt paving - Residential and commercial outdoors, and parks
6. Mulch - Residential and commercial applications
7. Miscellaneous traffic products - Industrial or commercial applications
8. Noise barrier property fence walls - Residential and/or commercial applications
Table 3. A list of tests determining the properties/performances of interior construction products and related standards.
Table 3. A list of tests determining the properties/performances of interior construction products and related standards.
No. Properties/Performances Standards
1. Chemical Resistance ASTM F925-02 “Standard test method for resistance to chemicals of resilient flooring”
ASTM D297-21 “Standard test methods for rubber products—Chemical analysis”
2. Density ASTM D729-95 “Standard specification for vinylidene chloride molding compounds”
3. Tensile Strength ASTM D412-16(2021) “Standard test methods for vulcanized rubber and thermoplastic elastomers—tension”
4. Wear Hardness DIN 53577 “Determination of compression stress value and compression stress-strain characteristic for flexible cellular materials”
5. Abrasion DIN 53516 “Testing of rubber and elastomers; determination of abrasion resistance”
6. Taber Abrasion ASTM C501-21 “Standard test method for relative resistance to wear of unglazed ceramic tile by the Taber abraser”
ASTM D4060-19 “Standard test method for abrasion resistance of organic coatings by the Taber abraser”
7. Fire Resistance DIN EN 13501-1 “Fire classification of construction products and building elements - Part 1: Classification using data from reaction to fire tests”
8. Flame Spread and
Smoke Development Index		 ASTM E84 “Standard test method for surface burning characteristics of building materials”
9. Tear ASTM D624-00(2020) “Standard test method for tear strength of conventional vulcanized rubber and thermoplastic elastomers”
10. Compression Set ISO 815-1:2019 “Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic — Determination of compression set — Part 1: At ambient or elevated temperatures”
ASTM D395-18 “Standard test methods for rubber property—Compression set”
11. Shore Hardness ASTM D2240-15(2021) “Standard Test Method for Rubber Property—Durometer Hardness”
12. Floor Ignition ASTM D2859-16(2021) “Standard test method for ignition characteristics of finished textile floor covering materials”
13. Coefficient of Friction ASTM D1894 “Test method for static and kinetic coefficients of friction of plastic film and sheeting”
14. Static Coefficient of Friction ASTM D2047-17 “Standard test method for static coefficient of friction of polish-coated flooring surfaces as measured by the James machine”
15. Use With Wheelchairs DIN EN 1307:1997-06 “Textile floor coverings - Classification of pile carpets”
16. Remaining Deformation DIN EN 433:1994-11 “Resilient floor coverings - Determination of residual indentation after static loading”
17. Electrostatic Properties DIN EN 1815:2016 “Resilient and laminate floor coverings - Assessment of static electrical propensity”
18. Light Fastness DIN EN ISO 105-B08:2010-02 “Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part B08: Quality control of blue wool reference materials 1 to 7”
19. Sound Absorption (SAA) / Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) ASTM C423 “Standard test method for sound absorption and sound absorption coefficients by the reverberation room method”
20. Oxidation/oil Resistance ASTM D2440-13(2021) “Standard test method for oxidation stability of mineral insulating oil”
21. Impact Sound Transmission ASTM E492-09(2016) “Standard test method for laboratory measurement of impact sound transmission through floor-ceiling assemblies using the tapping machine”
22. Critical Radiant Flux ASTM E648-19 “Standard test method for critical radiant flux of floor-covering systems using a radiant heat energy source”
23. Static Load (1,000 lbs) ASTM F970-17 “Standard test method for measuring recovery properties of floor coverings after static loading”
24. Acoustics Measurement of Sound Insulation ISO 10140-3:2021 “Acoustics — Laboratory measurement of sound insulation of building elements — Part 3: Measurement of impact sound insulation”
Table 4. List of tests determining the properties/performances of exterior construction products and related standards.
Table 4. List of tests determining the properties/performances of exterior construction products and related standards.
No. Properties/Performances Standards
1. Fall Height ASTM F1292-22 “Standard specification for impact attenuation of surfacing materials within the use zone of playground equipment”
2. Freeze-Thaw ASTM C67/C67M-21 “Standard test methods for sampling and testing brick and structural clay tile”
3. Static Coefficient of Friction ASTM C1028-06 “Standard test method for determining the static coefficient of friction of ceramic tile and other like surfaces by the horizontal dynamometer pull-meter method”
4. High-Temperature Stability ASTM D573-04(2019) “Standard Test Method for Rubber—Deterioration in an Air Oven”
5. Critical Radiant Flux ASTM E648-19 “Standard test method for critical radiant flux of floor-covering systems using a radiant heat energy source”
6. Mildew Resistance ASTM G21-15(2021) “Standard practice for determining resistance of synthetic polymeric materials to fungi”
7. Water Drainage -
8. Wind Resistance UL 1897 “Standard for safety, uplift tests for roof covering systems”
9. Durability ASTM C67/C67M-21 “Standard test methods for sampling and testing brick and structural clay tile”
10. Flame Spread ASTM E108-20a “Standard test methods for fire tests of roof coverings”
11. Dimensional Stability DIN EN 13746-2004 “Surfaces for sports areas - determination of dimensional changes due to the effect of varied water, frost and heat conditions”
Table 5. List of tests determining the properties/performances of noise barrier property fence walls and related standards.
Table 5. List of tests determining the properties/performances of noise barrier property fence walls and related standards.
No. Properties/Performances Standards
1. Road Traffic Noise CEN EN 1793-(1, 2) “Road traffic noise reducing devices - Test method for determining the acoustic performance - Part 1: Intrinsic characteristics of sound absorption under diffuse sound field conditions”
CEN EN 1794-(1, 2) “Road traffic noise reducing devices - Non-acoustic performance - Part 2: General safety and environmental requirements”
2. Sound Absorption ASTM C423-22 “Standard test method for sound absorption and sound absorption coefficients by the reverberation room method”
3. Airborne Sound Transmission ASTM E90-09(2016) “Standard test method for laboratory measurement of airborne sound transmission loss of building partitions and elements”
4. Flame Spread ASTM E84 “Standard test method for surface burning characteristics of building materials”
CAN/ULC-S102.2:2018 “Standard method of test for surface burning characteristics of flooring, floor coverings, and miscellaneous materials and assemblies”
5. Hardness ASTM D2240 “Standard test method for rubber property - Durometer hardness”
6. Static Coefficient of Friction ASTM C1028-06 “Standard test method for determining the static coefficient of friction of ceramic tile and other like surfaces by the horizontal dynamometer pull-meter method”
7. Skid resistance ASTM E303-22 “Standard test method for measuring surface frictional properties using the British pendulum tester”
8. Corrosion Resistance ASTM B117-22 “Standard practice for operating salt spray (fog) apparatus”
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated